· The City of Bellingham Finance Director, John Carter, will hold a public hearing at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 28, 2012, in the Yukon Room at Bellingham City Hall, concerning the proposed issuance by the City of tax-exempt limited tax general obligation refunding bonds.

Bellingham City Council meets all requirements of the State of Washington Open Meetings Act.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

SNAPP / KNUTSON moved approval of the March 12, 2012 minutes of the regular City Council meeting as submitted. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.

15 - MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

Leonard Lindstrom offered social advice.

Charles Law expressed thanks for the new crosswalk at St. Paul and Alabama Street. He expressed a desire from employees and parents at Kids Corner who would like a speed limit zone and warning sign from 6 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. at Undine and Alabama Streets.

Wendy Harris expressed concerns regarding the Bloedel Donovan Park Master Plan and the lack of public input. She made the following points:

· Although a public meeting is scheduled for March 29, she feels that plans are too advanced for public input to be meaningful.· Public input/discussions surrounding Asian Clams and other invasive species, and recreational use of the lake, should have been before staff came forward with an inspection program. Facts regarding the lake have changed significantly and discussion has basically been foreclosed. She hopes that this council will do something aggressive and make sure there is a discussion of that information. · While it’s wonderful that the city is now understanding and addressing requirements to comply with the Clean Water Act and the TMDL, the city must also comply with Growth Management Act and Critical Areas Ordinance for wetlands and habitat conservation areas.· She is not aware of any discussion having taken place regarding a very important wetland immediately adjacent to the park.· The city is also regulated under the Shoreline Management Act and required to protect all ecological functions of the lake, not just water quality. · This plan is going to allow increased use of the lake with more impacts. Human impacts are the hardest to mitigate.· There should be more opportunity for public input on important issues like Lake Whatcom.

AB19506 1. Consideration of a Development Agreement between Whitworth Park, LLC and the City regarding the 41-lot Whitworth Park Subdivision to be located in the 1100 block of Yew Street in the Whatcom Falls Neighborhood

“A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH WHITWORTH PARK, LLC IN SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION.”

Alan Marriner, Assistant City Attorney, recapped the process to date and explained that approval of this resolution would authorize the Mayor to enter into the development agreement, included in the agenda packet which, vests all permits necessary for Whitworth Park to obtain final plat approval for seven years from the date of preliminary plat approval and requires the city to review and process all approvals or additional permits expeditiously.

Upon discussion with council members, Mr. Marriner and Kathy Bell, Planner II, clarified:

· for the purposes of the settlement, preliminary plat approval was January, 2010. The application qualifies under the Wetlands Stream Ordinance, which was in effect when the application was received in 2005. · The planned stormwater facilities meet current requirements.· Potential trails will be considered as the process proceeds.· One member of the LLC has resigned with ownership being absorbed by the two remaining members.

Council President Bornemann opened the public hearing. Wendy Harris feels the decision to concede this case is being made solely for financial considerations. While the city needs to be responsible with public funds, it also needs to consider the broader policy implications of any action and should be in the best interest of the public. The Critical Areas Ordinance was enacted as a requirement under the Growth Management Act, in large part, to protect public health and safety. Allowing a permit to go forward [under the Wetland Stream Permit] the city is giving up valuable public rights. Allowing someone a twelve year period from the time that they submitted their application to when that application expires, is a very long time in which updated science and new environmental regulations aren’t being kept in place.

Mr. Marriner responded that the lawsuit had nothing to do with the approvals of the project. The city approved the project but the developers sued because they felt the city took too long to approve their project. This lawsuit is about damages; not approvals. Under state law, from the date of preliminary plat approval, which was January, 2010, the applicant is vested for seven (7) years. Were the Wetlands Stream Permit to expire they would have to reapply, pay an administrative fee and get another permit, but it would be a Wetland Stream Permit, it would not be a Critical Areas Ordinance Permit.

“AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE 2012 BUDGET RECONCILING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BUDGETED ESTIMATED 2012 BEGINNING RESERVE BALANCES AND ACTUAL 2012 BEGINNING RESERVE BALANCES, AND PLACING THE DIFFERENCES IN THE ENDING RESERVE BALANCES FOR A NET RESERVE INCREASE OF $47,892,856.00.”

LILLIQUIST / SNAPP moved approval for first and second reading. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.

AB19508 2. An Ordinance authorizing $14,444,030.90 in reappropriations for goods and services ordered in 2011, but unpaid at year end

“AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE 2012 BUDGET APPROPRIATING $14,444,030.90 IN ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO PAY FOR GOODS AND SERVICES ORDERED IN 2011 BUT UNPAID AT YEAR END CLOSING, FROM REVENUE AND ESTIMATED ENDING RESERVE BALANCES.”

LILLIQUIST / LEHMAN moved approval for first and second reading. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.

AB19509 3. An Ordinance authorizing $41,154,197.38 in reappropriations for goods and services budged in 2011, but unencumbered at year end

“AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE 2012 BUDGET APPROPRIATING $41,154,197.38 IN ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO PAY FOR GOODS AND SERVICES THAT WERE AUTHORIZED IN 2011 BUT WERE NOT OBLIGATED BY PURCHASE ORDER OR CONTRACT BY YEAR END, FROM ESTIMATED RESERVES AND REVENUE, AND PLACING $32,383.23 IN ESTIMATED ENDING DESIGNATED AND UNDESIGNATED RESERVES.”

LILLIQUIST / LEHMAN moved approval for first and second reading. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.

Parks And RecreationSeth Fleetwood, ChairStan Snapp; Jack Weiss

AB19510 1. Update on Bloedel Donovan Park Maintenance and Management

Council Member Fleetwood reported on presentation made during committee. There will be a public hearing, March 29, 2012 at 7:30 p.m. in the Bloedel Donovan gym. Information only.

AB19511 2. Resolution authorizing the City to apply for a grant through the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account for Bloedel Donovan shoreline restoration

“A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE MODIFICATION OF THE 2012 ACTION PLAN OF THE 2008 - 2012 CONSOLIDATED PLAN, THE USE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FUNDS AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO SUBMIT THE MODIFICATION OF 2012 ACTION PLAN TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.”

Council Member Weiss, Chair of the Planning & Community Development Committee opened the worksession and explained that Council’s options are to accept the Planning Commission recommendation; alter or deny that recommendation and then provide different findings of fact or schedule additional worksessions.

WEISS / KNUTSON moved to close the written public comment. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. [Written public comment reopened later.]

Kathy Bell, Planner II, pointed out that council’s prior comments were included in the agenda packet with responses provided by staff. Some of the issues that may not have been touched upon during the public testimony included:

1) Affordability: the applicant and the Planning Commission did not recommend that there by an affordable housing component with this proposal.

2) Infill toolkit use in single family zones (the use of the infill toolkit predominately limited to market affordability mostly due to smaller square footage): it is expressly prohibited to do the infill toolkit in single family zones. That is in part, why the zoning is proposed as Residential Multi Planned. There is a provision within the infill toolkit that addresses going through this very process, should infill housing types be suggested in single family zones. In the staff report to the Planning Commission, staff believes that this is the process in which to review whether or not the infill toolkit is appropriate in this location. The review process for this property, for Residential Multi Planned, would be either a subdivision proposal or a planned permit proposal, both of which are public processes. A specific proposal is not being presented at this time. That would come next should there be a change in zoning. This proposal, is a policy level request.

3) Land use enablement process (once the zoning is in place or an actual development is proposed for the property): concerns have been raised about environment and transportation. Review of those would come with the land use enablement process.

For the benefit of the council and audience, Ms. Bell recited the decision criteria from the Bellingham Municipal Code.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/NEIGHBORHOOD AMENDMENT DECISION CRITERIA:

“20.20.040 - Decision Criteria

A. Petitioners requesting amendments to the comprehensive plan and/or a neighborhood plan shall be prepared to offer justification for the request using the following criteria. These criteria will be used by the Planning Commission and City Council to evaluate amendment requests:

1. There exists an error, omission or inconsistency in the pertinent comprehensive plan or neighborhood plan provision; OR

2. All of the following criteria have been met:

a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act and other applicable laws;

b. The proposed amendment addresses changing circumstances, changing community values, and is consistent with and will help achieve the comprehensive plan goals and policies;

c. The proposed amendment will result in long term benefit to the community and is in the community's overall best interests;

d. The amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare; and

e. If a concurrent rezone is requested, the proposal must also meet the criteria for rezones in BMC 20.19.030.”

REZONE DECISION CRITERIA:

“20.19.030 – Criteria

A. The City may approve or approve with modifications an application for a rezone of property if:

1. It is consistent with the comprehensive plan or corresponds to a concurrent comprehensive plan amendment application;

2. It will not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare;

3. It is in the best interests of the residents of Bellingham;

4. The subject property is suitable for development in general conformance with zoning standards under the proposed zoning district;

5. Adequate public facilities and services are, or would be, available to serve the development allowed by the proposed zone;

6. It will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and

7. It is appropriate because either:

a. Conditions in the immediate vicinity have changed sufficiently since the property was classified under the current zoning that a rezone is in the public interest; or

b. The rezone will correct a zone classification or zone boundary that was inappropriate when established; or

c. The rezone will implement the policies of the comprehensive plan.”

Council Member Knutson asked if there is any possible way to have more access within the site.

Ms. Bell said it is unlikely. The property is surrounded by physical barriers: I-5, Lake Padden Park and Padden Creek with the gorge. Also, within Lake Padden park there are no rights-of-ways. The portion of Padden Gorge that this property actually abuts has an existing conservation easement which prohibits any vehicular access. Given all this, there is currently either lack of ownership, lack of authority or physical constraints and barriers that make it nearly impossible to provide a second access.

Council President Bornemann and staff discussed in detail, the direction of council from the February, 2011 Committee meeting. Mr. Bornemann said that council’s direction was to work with the applicant to be able to maximize their density under the current zoning and felt that staff had not followed council direction. Jeff Thomas, Planning Director, felt that the Council’s direction was to work with the applicants to close the gap between the density that was shown during docketing and the yield from the existing zoning of the property.

Mr. Thomas added that the applicant submitted a paid application that had a density which yields 492 units. Once a complete application is submitted, within a timely manner after the docketing process, staff is required to process an application and then guide it through the Type VI legislative process.

Kathy Bell added that discussions were held and staff did understand the direction from council. During docketing, staff made it clear that the docketing application could not be conditioned but the council could certainly give direction. While there are no longer economic factors in the decision criteria, the applicants did provide some economic analysis of what it would take to get infrastructure to the site, regardless of the density or housing types. The proposal was reviewed against the criteria and staff provided a recommendation along with the rationale and justification for its' review.

Council Member Snapp concurred with Mr. Bornemann that council direction had been to work with a density under current zoning and maximize it if possible; and to not bring back a rezone request. Council Member Lehman asked, regarding economic feasibility, if fundamentally it is felt that this property is not developable at the current zoning without increased density.

Ms. Bell replied that, that was the determination of why not to proceed with the preliminary plat that was relayed back to staff from the owners at the time. And, that was also the information that was presented to staff during the application review process. The decision criteria no longer has an economic component to it. So while the economics were discussed briefly within the Planning Commission staff report, they are not a part of the decision criteria.

Staff and council thoroughly discussed the implications of using the infill toolkit, detached Accessory Dwelling Units, and matters including density, economic issues, land capacity, affordability, the housing market, the range of units under difference scenarios, review of fire regulations, traffic, utilities, decision criteria, limited access points, and public safety.

Council Member Lilliquist feels that the findings of the current proposal fail the decision criteria.

Council President Bornemann also feels that the current proposal fails in providing for the public good, neighborhood character and Comprehensive Plan issues. He is willing to look at a change in use so that the applicant can meet the number of units. He believes that the property could fit in with the existing neighborhood and it would provide infill on the outer edges of the city.

Ms. Bell clarified that a new application would require council’s taking action on this proposal. If changes are considered, a modified proposal would be recommended.

She added that staff and the Planning Commission, in the findings, found that the proposal had to be conditioned in order to meet the criteria. She senses that what council is doing is to try to find a way with certainty, to guarantee neighborhood character and address the benefits and the negatives which, in part, is what the Planning Commission was getting at with the development agreement. This is not a project-specific proposal but a policy level review. A development agreement, should council choose to do that, could be specific zoning regulations or requirements and specific conditions or prerequisite considerations.

Jeff Thomas, Planning Director noted that if council was to provide direction to look for something other than this proposal or the proposal as recommended by the Planning Commission then it would not come back to council until the 2013 Comprehensive Plan update.

Ms. Bell and council discussed conditions that may or may not be permissible. She reminded council that the applicant is in the conceptual stage so it is difficult to establish specific conditions and determine what conditions are appropriate. She has full confidence in the city’s codes. When a Land Use proposal is received, then staff has code to direct how the proposal fits on the site, decision criteria, critical areas identified, what portions of the site can be built out, transportation and safety impacts, mitigation and enforcement.

WEISS / KNUTSON moved to reopen the written public comment. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.

Council directed staff to schedule a worksession in the afternoon on April 16, 2012. If the agenda is too full, the worksession will be moved to the evening.

Council President Bornemann reported on the presentation made during committee. Information only.

AB19518 2. An Ordinance for a budget amendment to increase 2012 appropriation for financial systems by $65,000

“AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE 2012 BUDGET APPROPRIATING $65,000.00 FROM ESTIMATED ENDING DESIGNATED RESERVE IN THE TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND TO BE USED FOR UPGRADING AND REPLACING FINANCIAL SYSTEM SOFTWARE.”

KNUTSON / SNAPP moved approval for first and second reading. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.

3. Approval of City Council Committee and/or Special Meeting minutes

None submitted at evening meeting.

4. Old/New business

SNAPP / KNUTSON moved to authorize a letter to the new owners of KVOS TV, with a copy to the FCC, requesting that they keep a presence in the community. MOTION CARRIED 7-0

Council directed staff to prepare a resolution congratulating the Western Washington University Basketball team on the championship.

Council directed staff to schedule a worksession on April 16th of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir & Natural Resources Committee to discuss the boat launch, inspections and other issues related to Lake Whatcom.

SNAPP / KNUTSON moved to approve the Mayor’s appointment of David Jefferson to the Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Board, term ending February 27, 2015. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.

CONSENT AGENDAAll matters listed on the Consent Agenda are considered routine and/or non-controversial items and may be approved in a single motion. A member of the Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.

“AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE 2012 BUDGET RECOGNIZING AWARD OF A $68,424.00 GRANT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO THE BELLINGHAM FIRE DEPARTMENT TO PURCHASE EXTRICATION SYSTEM TOOLS, AND APPROPRIATING RELATED EXPENDITURES IN THE GENERAL FUND.”

AB19520 2. Authorization of check issue for accounts payable from March 2, 2012 to March 8, 2012

AB19521 3. Authorization of check issue for accounts payable from March 9, 2012 to March 15, 2012

AB19522 4. Authorization of check issue for payroll from February 25, 2012 to March 9, 2012

Council Member Fleetwood and Council Member Lehman returned to Chambers.

Executive Session Report – continued

1. Potential Property Acquisition: Staff provided information on the acquisition of the twelve-acre Pazaski property located on the water side of Marine Drive. The acquisition would create a publicly owned beach .64 miles in length, create a public overlook and access from Marine Drive and provide an explicit right to an at- or above-grade railroad crossing. The property is appraised at $380,000.00 and assessed at $483,284.00.

WEISS / SNAPP moved to authorize the purchase of said property at a purchase price of $407,500.00. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.

2. Potential Litigation: Removed from Executive Session.

3. Potential Litigation: Staff provided an update on a potential litigation matter involving a contract between the City of Bellingham and American Traffic Solutions (ATS) related to a traffic safety camera system.

KNUTSON / LEHMAN moved to authorize the Mayor to execute an amendment to the contract with the following terms:

· The traffic safety camera system will not be implemented unless the city and ATS mutually agree to implementation in the next five years.· The city is granted control over whether the system will ever be implemented.· The contract automatically expires in five years.· If the system is implemented in the next five years, ATS will be the vendor.· The city agrees to not take any action that impairs the terms of the contract.· The city will pay to ATS, $100,000.00 prior to June 1, 2012.

5. Litigation: City of Bellingham v. Whatcom County and Caitac: Staff provided an update on a litigation matter. Information only. No action taken.

FINAL CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES

AB19486 1. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE 2012 BUDGET PROVIDING FOR A STAFFING REORGANIZATION IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT BY REALLOCATING $341,943.00 IN EXPENDITURES IN THE GENERAL FUND AND PLACING $83,927.00 IN SAVINGS IN ESTIMATED ENDING UNDESIGNATED RESERVE

KNUTSON / WEISS moved approval for third and final reading. Upon motion, said bill was placed on final passage and approved by the following roll call vote:

AB19487 2. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE 2012 BUDGET APPROPRIATING UP TO $220,000.00 FROM ESTIMATED ENDING DESIGNATED RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING OUR CONTRACTOR FOR THIRD PARTY AUDIT SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH A UTILITY TAX AUDIT OF PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC.

WEISS / LILLIQUIST moved approval for third and final reading. Upon motion, said bill was placed on final passage and approved by the following roll call vote:

AB19489 4. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE 2012 BUDGET AUTHORIZING AN ADDITIONAL $450,000.00 OF EXPENDITURES IN THE CLAIMS AND LITIGATION FUND FOR PAYMENT OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, DEFENSE COUNSEL FEES, AND LITIGATION EXPENSES RELATED TO A CIVIL CASE PENDING AGAINST THE CITY

WEISS / KNUTSON moved approval for third and final reading. Upon motion, said bill was placed on final passage and approved by the following roll call vote:

AB19493 5. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE 2012 BUDGET AUTHORIZING A LOAN OF UP TO $2,200,000.00 FROM THE FLEET FUND TO THE WATER FUND WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION DEPARTMENT AND APPROPRIATING $2,200,000.00 IN THE FLEET FUND FOR THE INTERFUND LOAN AND APPROPRIATING $2,700,000.00 IN THE WATER FUND WATERSHED ACQUISITION FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND AND 2012 PAYMENT ON THE INTERFUND LOAN

LEHMAN / WEISS moved approval for third and final reading. Upon motion, said bill was placed on final passage and approved by the following roll call vote:

This is a digital copy of an original document located at Bellingham's City Hall. The City of Bellingham specifically disclaims any responsibility or liability for the contents of this document. The City of Bellingham does not verify the correctness, accuracy, or validity of the information appearing in this document.